1. With respect to the BA large of 992 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun:

(a)each point in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 2;

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the co-owned land partition claim and the land size of 992 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the instant land.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a co-owner, may file a claim against the Defendants, other co-owners, for the partition of the instant land pursuant to Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the facts acknowledged under paragraph (1) of the partition method, Gap evidence No. 2, the result of surveying appraisal commission, and the purport of the whole pleadings, there is no objection by the defendants as to the partition method as set forth in paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 presented by the plaintiff, and the size or share of each relevant part divided into the plaintiff and the defendants according to the above division method among the whole area of the land in this case

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the location, utilization status, and attitude of the parties, it is reasonable to divide the land of this case into the part 1, 2, 12, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 1 of the attached Form No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, and 2 of the attached Form No. 893 square meters in succession with respect to the land of this case into the corresponding shares in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 12, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 1.

3. In conclusion, the land of this case is divided as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.